Newsletter

State to Savannah: Turn over public records

City attorney's initial response about public meetings left questions 'unanswered'

Hunter McRae

City Council Member Tony Thomas. Hunter McRae/Savannah Morning News

Richard Burkhart

City Attorney James Blackburn at the Jan. 26 City Council meeting. Richard Burkhart/Savannah Morning News

The state Attorney General's Office has found the city's response to potential Open Meetings violations lacking.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Stefan Ritter has written to City Attorney James Blackburn asking for a litany of additional information. Ritter did not specify a deadline for response.

"Your letter unfortunately left several questions raised by my initial letter unanswered," Ritter wrote. "...To the extent documents are requested, please treat this letter as a request for production of those documents under the Open Records Act."

Ritter sent the letter Friday; the Savannah Morning News received a copy Tuesday.

The Attorney General's Office is investigating whether violations of state law occurred during two days of candidate interviews Jan. 18 and 19. The public was invited to attend a forum one night, but other meetings were held without advanced public notice as required under law. Council also broke into teams of three to interview job candidates, which circumvented a requirement that meetings be public if more than five on council attend. The Savannah Morning News raised the question of possible violations after learning of an unadvertised meeting Jan. 19, in which candidates gave PowerPoint presentations about what they would achieve in their first 90 days as city manager.

City officials could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and ordered to pay a $500 fine, but failure to remedy any violation could render any subsequent action, including hiring a city manager, null and void.

Aldermen write AG

The state investigation is getting a helping hand from two Savannah aldermen. Jeff Felser and Tony Thomas have submitted documents to Ritter's office.

Felser sent a fax Friday afternoon in which he provided a copy of minutes of the Jan. 26 City Council meeting. He underlined sections showing he refused to approve minutes of a Jan. 18 special meeting with candidates, and on the cover letter explained "due to my opinion, as a councilman/attorney that the law was not followed." He twice underlined "not" for emphasis.

Thomas' letter says he was "disheartened" that complete information regarding the Attorney General's request was left out of the city's response. He provided a copy of a schedule showing how council teams would rotate to interview job candidates.

He disputed the city attorney's statement that the city's process was "very open" and "with no intent to in anyway fail to comply with the spirit and intent of the Statutes."

Blackburn and Mayor Otis Johnson have pointed out that the public forum provided citizens the most access citizens have ever had to a city manager candidate.

Thomas contends the openness wasn't genuine.

"The truth of the matter is that during executive sessions and other times, there were discussions on how to prevent the media from gaining access to information and preventing them from finding out information," Thomas wrote.

"In fact, there were even veiled threats launched against the council by Mayor Otis Johnson about 'making it a campaign issue' and even ethics violations for those that violated these requests.

"I have no doubt that the 'spirit' of the open meetings statute was violated and admit that there were discussions on how to prevent the public from access," Thomas concluded.

Johnson has said his "threat" of an ethics complaint was meant for those who would reveal discussions in executive session.

Presentations are public

In his letter to Blackburn, Ritter specifies 14 pieces of information the city is to provide - including how and where notices were posted, minutes of meetings, executive session affidavits and city policy for recess, adjournment and the rules of order for meetings.

Ritter also has received response from David Hudson, general counsel for the Georgia Press Association and attorney for the Savannah Morning News.

Hudson's response includes the argument that council twice was in error by meeting privately and receiving new information. The first meeting was a Dec. 17 executive session where council heard presentations on the eight finalists. The second was the Jan. 19 meeting with the PowerPoints. Hudson cites a 2001 Court of Appeals decision that found that considering documents that had not been previously disclosed to the public constituted "receiving evidence or hearing argument." The law allows a closed meeting only to discuss or deliberate, not as a means to present new information that should be made available to the public.

In its ruling, the appeals court explained exceptions to open meetings law must be strictly construed, Hudson wrote. Otherwise it would frustrate the purpose of the open meetings law, which is to eliminate "distrust of officials who are clothed with the power to act in [the people's] name."

Olens wants stronger 'Sunshine'ATLANTA - Attorney General Sam Olens announced his is taking a more proactive approach than his predecessors in championing a broad legislative agenda, including a rewrite of the state's Sunshine Law.Meeting with reporters at the Law Department on Tuesday, Olens acknowledged his more aggressive approach.The rewrite of the Sunshine Law, also known as the Open Meetings/Open Records Act, hasn't been introduced, but Olens intends to update it with recent court decisions and clarify the language."The current law is really incomprehensible," he said. "The press can understand it because they work with it every day, but it needs to be clear for John Q. Citizen."One change in the law he intends is doubling to $1,000 the fine for government officials who improperly meet secretly or refuse to turn over records covered under the law.- Walter C. Jones